Talk:Microchess/GA1
GA Review
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Remsense (talk · contribs) 08:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Criteria
[edit]Good Article Status - Review Criteria
A good article is—
- Well-written:
- (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
- (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
- Verifiable with no original research:
- (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2]
- (c) it contains no original research; and
- (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
- Broad in its coverage:
- (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
- (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. [4]
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: [5]
- (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
- (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]
Notes
- ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
- ^ Footnotes must be used for in-line citations.
- ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
- ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
- ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
- ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
Review
[edit]- Well-written:
- Verifiable with no original research:
- Broad in its coverage:
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (prose) | The reviewer has left no comments here |  Pass
|
| (b) (MoS) | The reviewer has left no comments here | Pass
|
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (references) | The reviewer has left no comments here | Pass
|
| (b) (citations to reliable sources) | The reviewer has left no comments here | Pass
|
| (c) (original research) | The reviewer has left no comments here | Pass
|
| (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) | The reviewer has left no comments here | Pass
|
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (major aspects) | The reviewer has left no comments here | Pass
|
| (b) (focused) | The reviewer has left no comments here | Pass
|
| Notes | Result |
|---|---|
| The reviewer has left no comments here | Pass
|
| Notes | Result |
|---|---|
| The reviewer has left no comments here | Pass
|
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) | The reviewer has left no comments here | Pass
|
| (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) | The reviewer has left no comments here | Pass
|
Result
[edit]| Result | Notes |
|---|---|
| Pass |
Alright, sorry about that! I enjoyed this one, I love chess and computers and computers, it's always nice when an article reveals an important corner you never looked at before. Main sourcing is smallish but that's to be expected—seems good to go after my spurious copyedits. |
Discussion
[edit]- @PresN: do you think it would be worthwhile to specify timestamps for each inline citation of Peter Jennings's oral history? (I'm planning on listening to the whole thing anyway, it seems very interesting.) Remsense诉 01:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Remsense: Yes, and now it's done - a nearly two-hour interview is a bit much to leave without timestamps, I suppose. --PresN 02:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, my bad! I had meant to do it during my listening tonight. Remsense诉 02:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.